There's the issue of neutrality, on which I think Linus' attitude is acceptable - as someone pointed out on the mailing list, the linux foundation does have to be legally situated somewhere.
What is not acceptable is the lack of transparency - the reason for removing maintainers should be stated clearly and plainly, not hidden under weasely terms like "various compliance requirements" that communicate nothing.
Are the "compliance requirements" anti-Russian sanctions, or is it a new legal theory by Microsoft that it is illegal for anyone who has used Windows 11 to contribute to FOSS software, but we don't get to learn how the law is being applied, because the people that should be shedding light on it are instead hiding it.
In short, do we want the law to be public, or secret? Any time vague terms like "legal reasons" or "compliance requirements", are used, it becomes a little more secret.
Software can't be neutral or non-neutral, it doesn't have its own will or agency (yet).
Software is written by people, however, who have no such obligation. As Desmond Tutu said,
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality"
Neutral refers to your motivation not to your effects. If I chose to have lunch at diner A, it may result in the owner of diner B, going homeless but I am not responsible for that. Diner B's owner may not appreciate that, but that doesn't effect my neutrality over who should be homeless or not, just chose on my particular tastes.
You are not neutral in this case. You chose a diner. To the mouse analogy, which is an interesting way of putting it. I would say the elephant should lift his leg. It will not harm anyone, but I would also say the mouse isn’t owed recompense. Both of them should watch where they are going.
To be neutral and do nothing, is indeed siding with the oppressor.
I am neutral in my choice of homelessness. I am choosing based on my cravings independent of the other effects. If the ownership situation was replaced, I would not change my choice. My decision-making is neutral on who is effected. When compartmentalizing to the criterion of selection, I am neutral.
That isn't how it works. Just because you are ignorant of the consequences of your choices doesn't excuse you from the consequences. Otherwise it would be a perfect legal defense.
Neutral in the quote refers to both intention (being in favor of injustice) and effects (effectively supporting injustice).
As for your analogy: You are describing legal and acceptable competition between diners, which is not comparable to the situation here, unless diner A initiated an unjustified, violent, irredentist war of genocidal conquest against diner B, for which diner A has been condemned by most countries in the world, and also diner A's leader is wanted for war crimes against children committed while prosecuting this war, and is evading arrest.
If that is the case, then yes,
remaining neutral or choosing diner A, is indeed choosing the side of the oppressor, and such a choice would reasonably reflect poorly on you.
Neutral to me implies intention regards of effects. It's accepting to act independent of effects and only on intention. Otherwise the word "neutral" no longer has any meaning. Indifference is not evil, malice is.
This formulation states that since every act will inevitably in some way favor one party, every single act is moral, which to me seems fanatical, absolutist, and frankly unlivable.
> Neutral to me implies intention regards of effects.
That's fine, and neutral in the quote by Desmond Tutu refers to both intention (being in favor of injustice) and effects (effectively supporting injustice, even if that is not your primary intent).
> Otherwise the word "neutral" no longer has any meaning
That's a bit self-centered, innit? 'If you don't agree with my personal definition of this term, the term has no meaning.'
> Indifference is not evil
Indifference/neutrality in situations of injustice can absolutely support the oppressor, which is the entire point of the quote. Indeed, someone with no empathy for those affected by their actions would be meeting at least 1 criterion of sociopathy.
> This formulation states that since every act will inevitably in some way favor one party, every single act is moral
You seem to be skipping over the "in situations of injustice" part of the quote. Most countries agree that russia's violent, irredentist war of genocidal conquest is an injustice perpetrated on Ukraine. The same cannot be said about 2 diners competing.
There's the issue of neutrality, on which I think Linus' attitude is acceptable - as someone pointed out on the mailing list, the linux foundation does have to be legally situated somewhere.
What is not acceptable is the lack of transparency - the reason for removing maintainers should be stated clearly and plainly, not hidden under weasely terms like "various compliance requirements" that communicate nothing.
Are the "compliance requirements" anti-Russian sanctions, or is it a new legal theory by Microsoft that it is illegal for anyone who has used Windows 11 to contribute to FOSS software, but we don't get to learn how the law is being applied, because the people that should be shedding light on it are instead hiding it.
In short, do we want the law to be public, or secret? Any time vague terms like "legal reasons" or "compliance requirements", are used, it becomes a little more secret.
Related discussions:
- (177 points, 1 day ago, 245 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41919670
- (10 points, today, 1 comment) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41938281
I think software should be neutral, otherwise why not implant an NSA backdoor in the Linux kernel to fight the Russian invasion?
Software can't be neutral or non-neutral, it doesn't have its own will or agency (yet).
Software is written by people, however, who have no such obligation. As Desmond Tutu said,
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality"
Neutral refers to your motivation not to your effects. If I chose to have lunch at diner A, it may result in the owner of diner B, going homeless but I am not responsible for that. Diner B's owner may not appreciate that, but that doesn't effect my neutrality over who should be homeless or not, just chose on my particular tastes.
You are not neutral in this case. You chose a diner. To the mouse analogy, which is an interesting way of putting it. I would say the elephant should lift his leg. It will not harm anyone, but I would also say the mouse isn’t owed recompense. Both of them should watch where they are going.
To be neutral and do nothing, is indeed siding with the oppressor.
I am neutral in my choice of homelessness. I am choosing based on my cravings independent of the other effects. If the ownership situation was replaced, I would not change my choice. My decision-making is neutral on who is effected. When compartmentalizing to the criterion of selection, I am neutral.
That isn't how it works. Just because you are ignorant of the consequences of your choices doesn't excuse you from the consequences. Otherwise it would be a perfect legal defense.
Neutral in the quote refers to both intention (being in favor of injustice) and effects (effectively supporting injustice).
As for your analogy: You are describing legal and acceptable competition between diners, which is not comparable to the situation here, unless diner A initiated an unjustified, violent, irredentist war of genocidal conquest against diner B, for which diner A has been condemned by most countries in the world, and also diner A's leader is wanted for war crimes against children committed while prosecuting this war, and is evading arrest.
If that is the case, then yes, remaining neutral or choosing diner A, is indeed choosing the side of the oppressor, and such a choice would reasonably reflect poorly on you.
Neutral to me implies intention regards of effects. It's accepting to act independent of effects and only on intention. Otherwise the word "neutral" no longer has any meaning. Indifference is not evil, malice is.
This formulation states that since every act will inevitably in some way favor one party, every single act is moral, which to me seems fanatical, absolutist, and frankly unlivable.
> Neutral to me implies intention regards of effects.
That's fine, and neutral in the quote by Desmond Tutu refers to both intention (being in favor of injustice) and effects (effectively supporting injustice, even if that is not your primary intent).
> Otherwise the word "neutral" no longer has any meaning
That's a bit self-centered, innit? 'If you don't agree with my personal definition of this term, the term has no meaning.'
> Indifference is not evil
Indifference/neutrality in situations of injustice can absolutely support the oppressor, which is the entire point of the quote. Indeed, someone with no empathy for those affected by their actions would be meeting at least 1 criterion of sociopathy.
> This formulation states that since every act will inevitably in some way favor one party, every single act is moral
You seem to be skipping over the "in situations of injustice" part of the quote. Most countries agree that russia's violent, irredentist war of genocidal conquest is an injustice perpetrated on Ukraine. The same cannot be said about 2 diners competing.
I understand that, so why not put in a NSA backdoor so that we can effectively defend against the oppressor?